which sadly, few in the music industry do anymore. That's my main gripe - this century; the music industry workers don't care so deeply about music as we did in the last century. They shrug their shoulders, do their jobs, collect their pay cheques and go home to more important things.

elitedaily.com/music/how-one-generation-...sic-industry/593411/

There's some truth in this and some fantasy. What they're saying is going to happen was predicted at the birth of Napster 15 years ago and although we're all free to record and release, it's hardly levelled the playing field in terms of commercial success. If anything the shear volume of music has made it harder for decent music to be heard above the mediocrity of everything else.

What is the "Ever Diminishing Role Of The Album" chart supposed to show? And who the f**k is Cliff Richards?

Facebook "likes" and Youtube plays are not an accurate reflection of someone's popularity, sales are. This article has this round the wrong way.

The paragraph about, "Powerhouse songwriting and production teams" is misguided. Top artists work with these teams because they are professionals, the songs are well written, well produced and polished. Let's face it, any artist who does happen to get a break by hooking up with people on the net will drop them like a stone for the professional teams.

The article also exposes another huge flaw. Yes, you can go on Youtube and learn how to use Logic but that doesn't make you a "producer" and sadly, this is exactly the way kids these days think. It's like calling yourself an author because you've learned how to use Word, it's utter bollocks.

Yes; like all articles some truth, numerous mistakes, some inaccuracies, some wrong assumptions.

Spot on K about "production". A music producer these days bears no definition similarities to the career I chose as a teenager (and still believe I was bloody good at).

Exactly JK. Actually the more I read this article the worse it gets.

The bit about music being more than entertainment, affecting dress and influences on friends is hilarious. The 60's, 70's, 80's and to some extend the 90's YES but now? Kids clothes don't reflect their musical tastes and I don't hear of kids being outcasts for liking different music anymore.

The industry didn't change because technology became cheaper, collaborations became easier and releasing new material became a breeze.

It changed because the majors got greedy and lazy. They failed to provide the public with a decent digital service and so Apple stepped in and took over, dictating the rules, profits etc. Since then the "retail" side of music has been largely out of the majors hands.

...and while I'm on one, why has Soundcloud become the platform everyone must be using?

They're all moaning that iTunes rips off artists, Youtube more so, then Spotify even more still, meanwhile Soundcloud don't pay a single penny.

"What brands understand is that music is an important part of Millennials’ identity. It’s more than entertainment for us. The music we listen to can be as important as how we dress and influences who our friends are.

Going to festivals and shows is an expression of identity. Brands know that if they can identify with a DJ like Skrillex and his dedicated fan base, they’ll have more than just the consumer’s brief attention. The brand will become part of the fans’ lifestyle."

Let's hope that "Millenials" aren't as stupid as the author and the marketing "experts" believe.

Here is a (much) better article about the reality of the "new" music business:

Music Recommendation & Digital Payola

"It has been the strong hope of the independent sector that online music services would be more democratic, allowing more artists to find audiences than was possible in the old-school media world.

Indeed, for many artists this certainly has been the case. It’s easy to find success stories where musicians made an impact outside of traditional gatekeepers influence. But what’s harder to see are the limitations of online music discovery, and the ways that the same powerful industry players dominate the space, replicating some of the very bottlenecks found offline. Even the counternarratives tend to be more complex than we imagine."

Good article DJones, I guess with no rules in place digital payola is going to occur.

I'm quite intrigued by Amazing Radio. They're a digital station and play music from their sister site Amazing Tunes, apparently bands upload and if Amazing like it they play it.

You can click on artists in their playlist's and more often than not it takes you to a profile for a PR company rather than a band. Notably many of the songs on the profile have multiple plays and the PR companies are also the "big boys" of the industry.

They don't have any adverts on their sites or the radio but employ reputable DJ's such as Paul Lester, so where's the money coming from?

I'm not going to start making any accusations but if it is payola, what's the benefit? How many listeners can they actually be getting?